Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 21

The financial life cycle paradox

Changing lifestyles combined with increasing life expectancy have outgrown traditional retirement planning models. But living longer does not translate into financial freedom. The natural conclusion is that you can work longer and therefore have more savings for your retirement. But the paradox is that people have less income-earning years and more education years and a better education does not necessarily lead to an improved financial position.

Increased life expectancy

Over the last 50 years, life expectancy has increased by around 12 years. A child born today will live until they are in their early 90s, and possibly much longer. The reasons Australians are living longer include better diet, improved medicines and living conditions.

In addition to everyone living longer, people are delaying significant life events. Australians are getting married and starting families later and having fewer children. Higher property costs means that children are staying at home longer and this is reflected in the increasing age of first home buyers. Many of these decisions regarding lifestyle are made because of someone’s financial position.

Economic structural changes

There have also been structural changes to the Australian economy that are impacting on an individual’s ability to save and invest for their future. Notably, Australia has increasingly become a high cost of production economy and to compete internationally we must improve our skills and qualifications. Australians are therefore spending more time at school and in tertiary and vocational training at a financial cost to themselves. Even with Government assistance to fund tertiary education many young adults are starting their working years indebted.

Another major structural change occurring is the increasing trend to casual or part time work.  Until the early 1990s it was common to have a job with one organisation for life. Today, this is rare and it is expected that people will change not only jobs four or five times in their career, but also the industry. This trend to part time or casual work, particularly amongst older workers, means their pre-retirement incomes are lower, limiting their ability to save.

Wealthmaker Financial Services has analysed these trends and structural changes, producing some telling ratios that have implications not only for financial institutions, but every Australian.

Sources: CIA World Fact Book, World Bank, ABS School Statistics Census, Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Averaging has been applied to cover the differences, e.g. males versus females.

The table shows that a person born in 1960 was expected to live to 71, today that person’s life expectancy has been revised to 82. The table then shows how those years will be spent. The table contains three important points for all of us:

1. Income earning/life expectancy

In 1960 the average Australian spent 61.7% of their life working, whereas today it’s only 42.7%.  This means that Australians have less time in the workforce, and therefore a reduced timeframe to save and invest for their retirement.

2. Retirement/life expectancy

In 1960 the average Australian was expected to live for 8 years after they retired. Today it’s around 22 years. For many in their pre-retirement years, they are unable to accumulate any more wealth because they are working part-time, even though they may wish to work full time. This means that their income is being used for living expenses.

3. Income Earning/retirement

In 1960, an Australian had 5.5 income-earning years to save or invest for each retirement year. Today the ratio is 1.6 earning years. An individual must save enough during their income-earning years to pay for 22 years of expected retirement.

Another factor frequently overlooked is the increasing tertiary education costs. Even with HECS and VET fee assistance, most children today when they start their working lives are indebted and often have to pay off this debt before they take out a mortgage. This is unlike the baby boomers, many of whom received free tertiary education, so they started their working lives debt free.

As our income-earning years are decreasing and our retirement years are increasing the current level of superannuation savings is insufficient. The Federal Government is taking some action to address this by increasing the superannuation levy, however, this only goes part of the way.  Australians will have to work longer and may have to accept a lower standard of living both before and in retirement.

 

Michael McAlary is Founder and Managing Director of WealthMaker Financial Services.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Putting off that retirement speech

So, we are not spending our super balances. So what!

Why life expectancy numbers are widely misunderstood

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.